DOCSLIB.ORG

Meadowcliffe Drive Erosion Control Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Meadowcliffe Drive Erosion Control Project Meadowcliffe Drive Erosion Control Project Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Environmental Study Report March 1, 2010 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority gratefully acknowledges the efforts and contributions of the following people participating in the planning and design phases of the Meadowcliffe Drive Erosion Control Project: Al Sinclair Meadowcliffe Drive Resident Barbara Heidenreich Ontario Heritage Trust Beth McEwen City of Toronto Bruce Pinchin Shoreplan Engineering Limited Councilor Brian Ashton City of Toronto Councillor Paul Ainslie City of Toronto Daphne Webster Meadowcliffe Drive Resident David Argue iTransConsulting Limited Don Snider Meadowcliffe Drive resident Janet Sinclair Meadowcliffe Drive Resident Jason Crowder Terraprobe Limited Jim Berry Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Joe Delle Fave Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Joseph Palmissano iTransConsulting Limited Larry Field Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Laura Stephenson Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Lindsay Prihoda Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Lori Metcalfe Guildwood Village Community Association Mark Preston Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Mike Tanos Terraprobe Limited Moranne McDonnell Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Nancy Lowes City of Toronto Nick Saccone Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Patricia Newland Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Paul Albanese City of Toronto Peter Xiarchos M.P.P Lorenzo Berardinetti’s Office Susan Scinocca Meadowcliffe Drive Resident Sushaliya Ragunathan M.P.P Lorenzo Berardinetti’s Office Timo Puhakka Guildwood Village Community Association Trevor Harris Meadowcliffe Drive Resident Tudor Botzan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) continues to work towards ensuring healthy rivers and shorelines, greenspace and biodiversity, and sustainable communities. One key step in this process is the design and implementation of shoreline stabilization projects along the Scarborough bluffs. These projects serve to remediate erosion prone zones, and to rehabilitate and enhance key natural areas and community focal points. Several decades of important waterfront work has been carried out by TRCA in partnership with waterfront communities to protect and preserve the waterfront for present and future generations. TRCA is interested in undertaking remedial erosion control works along a portion of the Lake Ontario shoreline from Bellamy Ravine to Bluffers Park, one of the last unprotected sectors of the Scarborough bluffs in the City of Toronto. The project site spans approximately 1,400 m of shoreline from Bluffers Park, East Beach to Bellamy Ravine (also known as Gates Gully). At the request of several homeowners who expressed concern over the loss of property and the potential long-term risk to their homes, TRCA began monitoring erosion rates on Meadowcliffe Drive in 1985. Several studies have been completed along this shoreline sector; however the most significant report was a geotechnical report conducted on behalf of TRCA by Terraprobe in 2006, which identified acceleration in the erosion rate. This study concluded there would be a significant loss of property and infrastructure, as well as a risk to public safety if mitigative measures were not undertaken along the Meadowliffe shoreline sector. TRCA’s project objective is to provide long-term protection against erosion by reducing wave energy, protecting the toe of the bluffs from wave energy, stabilizing slopes and enhancing natural processes. As a consequence, risk to public safety and infrastructure will be reduced, passive recreational opportunities will be increased, and aquatic and terrestrial habitat conditions as well as aesthetics will be improved. TRCA has examined a number of alternatives to achieve these objectives including headland beach systems, groynes, and breakwaters. As part of the Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) process, TRCA retained Shoreplan Engineering and Terraprobe to complete a detailed review and analysis of the existing conditions along the designated project area and assist with the development of alternative long-term remedial solutions to address the risk to public safety. Results of these investigations indicate that over the next 100 years, a substantial loss of highly valuable recreational, heritage and ecological land is projected, affecting numerous residential dwellings along the crest of the Scarborough Bluffs. In light of this information, a range of solutions were developed which recognized negative and positive attributes associated with each. To assist with the evaluation of the alternative options and provide input into the planning and design process, a Community Liaison Committee or CLC was formed. Composed of technical staff, stakeholders, provincial agency staff, community activists and interested members of the public, the CLC became an integral part of the Class EA process. Through a series of CLC meetings, a range of alternative options were considered, from traditional solutions such as cobble beaches and breakwaters. In addition to providing feedback on technical and economic considerations, the members provided great insight into the importance of preserving the Scarborough Bluffs. The preferred solution determined through the Class EA process is a shoreline treatment consisting of cobble beach anchored by a series of parallel headlands which will protect 600 metres (m) of eroding bluff below Meadowcliffe Drive. The headlands will be constructed with large (3-5 tonne) armour stones, measuring between 80 to 100 m in length and spaced 100 to 150 m apart. The area between the headlands will consist of rubble material covered with a III layer of beach cobble. The beach cobbles will be dynamically stable, and the profile shape will adjust to different wave conditions and water levels over time. The preferred solution also considers the potential need for a buttress at the base of the bluffs at the east end of the shoreline sector to reduce slope recession. TRCA identified five construction access options and evaluated these options to determine the preferred route. The preferred option is to access the site from the east via TRCA’s existing service road which provides shoreline access from the Guild Inn. TRCA has taken measures to address public concerns related to this route to ensure that all impacts are mitigated. Upon identifying the preferred solution, TRCA completed a detailed environmental analysis to determine any required mitigation measures. Information gathered through this process has informed the detailed design process. Working with representatives from City of Toronto, Ministry of Natural Resources, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and Transport Canada, TRCA will prepare a screening report to fulfill the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. This screening report will facilitate the necessary federal approvals that will be required to implement the project. Capital funding for the proposed works has been identified in TRCA’s 2010 – 2014 budget, with works to be carried out between the period of July 1 – March 31 annually. Given the nature of coastal interventions over the past 50 years across North America, TRCA anticipates that an adaptive management approach will be necessary, to allow modifications to the overall design based on continued monitoring and evaluation of the built structures, shoreline and slope recession. IV TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Relationship of the Undertaking to the Environmental Assessment Act.................................. 1 1.2 Purpose of the Undertaking .......................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Site Description .............................................................................................................................. 3 1.4 General Description of the Undertaking ...................................................................................... 5 1.5 Rationale for the Undertaking....................................................................................................... 6 2.0 BACKGROUND.......................................................................................................................... 7 2.1 History of the Problem................................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Identification of Previous Studies ................................................................................................ 9 2.2.1 Geotechnical Reports.................................................................................................................. 9 2.2.2 Planning Documents ................................................................................................................. 10 2.2.3 Aquatic and Terrestrial Habitat Reports .................................................................................... 12 2.2.4 Socioeconomic and Cultural Heritage Studies ......................................................................... 13 2.3 Justification of Conservation Authority Involvement ............................................................... 14 3.0 BASELINE ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY ..........................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 3. Description of the Potentially Affected Environment
    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 3. Description of the Potentially Affected Environment The purpose of Chapter 3 is to present an overview of the environment potentially affected by the SWP to create familiarity with issues to be addressed and the complexity of the environment likely to be affected by the Project. All aspects of the environment within the Project Study Area (see Figure 2- 1 in Chapter 2) relevant to the Project and its potential effects have been described in this chapter. The chapter is divided into three sections which capture different components of the environment: 1. Physical environment: describes the coastal and geotechnical processes acting on the Project Study Area; 2. Natural environment: describes terrestrial and aquatic habitat and species; and, 3. Socio-economic environment: describes existing and planned land use, land ownership, recreation, archaeology, cultural heritage, and Aboriginal interests. The description of the existing environment is based on the information from a number of studies, which have been referenced in the relevant sections. Additional field surveys were undertaken where appropriate. Where applicable, future environmental conditions are also discussed. For most components of the environment, existing conditions within the Project Area or Project Study Area are described. Where appropriate, conditions within the broader Regional Study Area are also described. 3.1 Physical Environment Structures and property within slopes, valleys and shorelines may be susceptible to damage from natural processes such as erosion, slope failures and dynamic beaches. These processes become natural hazards when people and property locate in areas where they normally occur (MNR, 2001). Therefore, understanding physical natural processes is vital to developing locally-appropriate Alternatives in order to meet Project Objectives.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Toronto — Detached Homes Average Price by Percentage Increase: January to June 2016
    City of Toronto — Detached Homes Average price by percentage increase: January to June 2016 C06 – $1,282,135 C14 – $2,018,060 1,624,017 C15 698,807 $1,649,510 972,204 869,656 754,043 630,542 672,659 1,968,769 1,821,777 781,811 816,344 3,412,579 763,874 $691,205 668,229 1,758,205 $1,698,897 812,608 *C02 $2,122,558 1,229,047 $890,879 1,149,451 1,408,198 *C01 1,085,243 1,262,133 1,116,339 $1,423,843 E06 788,941 803,251 Less than 10% 10% - 19.9% 20% & Above * 1,716,792 * 2,869,584 * 1,775,091 *W01 13.0% *C01 17.9% E01 12.9% W02 13.1% *C02 15.2% E02 20.0% W03 18.7% C03 13.6% E03 15.2% W04 19.9% C04 13.8% E04 13.5% W05 18.3% C06 26.9% E05 18.7% W06 11.1% C07 29.2% E06 8.9% W07 18.0% *C08 29.2% E07 10.4% W08 10.9% *C09 11.4% E08 7.7% W09 6.1% *C10 25.9% E09 16.2% W10 18.2% *C11 7.9% E10 20.1% C12 18.2% E11 12.4% C13 36.4% C14 26.4% C15 31.8% Compared to January to June 2015 Source: RE/MAX Hallmark, Toronto Real Estate Board Market Watch *Districts that recorded less than 100 sales were discounted to prevent the reporting of statistical anomalies R City of Toronto — Neighbourhoods by TREB District WEST W01 High Park, South Parkdale, Swansea, Roncesvalles Village W02 Bloor West Village, Baby Point, The Junction, High Park North W05 W03 Keelesdale, Eglinton West, Rockcliffe-Smythe, Weston-Pellam Park, Corso Italia W10 W04 York, Glen Park, Amesbury (Brookhaven), Pelmo Park – Humberlea, Weston, Fairbank (Briar Hill-Belgravia), Maple Leaf, Mount Dennis W05 Downsview, Humber Summit, Humbermede (Emery), Jane and Finch W09 W04 (Black Creek/Glenfield-Jane
    [Show full text]
  • 3131 Lower Don River West Lower Don River West 4.0 DESCRIPTION
    Lower Don River West Environmental Study Report Remedial Flood Protection Project 4.0 DESCRIPTION OF LOWER DON 4.1 The Don River Watershed The Don River is one of more than sixty rivers and streams flowing south from the Oak Ridges Moraine. The River is approximately 38 km long and outlets into the Keating Channel, which then conveys the flows into Toronto Harbour and Lake Historic Watershed Ontario. The entire drainage basin of the Don urbanization of the river's headwaters in York River is 360 km2. Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2, on the Region began in the early 1980s and continues following pages, describe the existing and future today. land use conditions within the Don River Watershed. Hydrologic changes in the watershed began when settlers converted the forests to agricultural fields; For 200 years, the Don Watershed has been many streams were denuded even of bank side subject to intense pressures from human vegetation. Urban development then intensified settlement. These have fragmented the river the problems of warmer water temperatures, valley's natural branching pattern; degraded and erosion, and water pollution. Over the years often destroyed its once rich aquatic and during the three waves of urban expansion, the terrestrial wildlife habitat; and polluted its waters Don River mouth, originally an extensive delta with raw sewage, industrial/agricultural marsh, was filled in and the lower portion of the chemicals, metals and other assorted river was straightened. contaminants. Small Don River tributaries were piped and Land clearing, settlement, and urbanization have buried, wetlands were "reclaimed," and springs proceeded in three waves in the Don River were lost.
    [Show full text]
  • Meadowcliffe Drive Erosion Control Project
    Meadowcliffe Drive Erosion Control Project Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Environmental Study Report March 1, 2010 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority gratefully acknowledges the efforts and contributions of the following people participating in the planning and design phases of the Meadowcliffe Drive Erosion Control Project: Al Sinclair Meadowcliffe Drive Resident Barbara Heidenreich Ontario Heritage Trust Beth McEwen City of Toronto Bruce Pinchin Shoreplan Engineering Limited Councilor Brian Ashton City of Toronto Councillor Paul Ainslie City of Toronto Daphne Webster Meadowcliffe Drive Resident David Argue iTransConsulting Limited Don Snider Meadowcliffe Drive resident Janet Sinclair Meadowcliffe Drive Resident Jason Crowder Terraprobe Limited Jim Berry Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Joe Delle Fave Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Joseph Palmissano iTransConsulting Limited Larry Field Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Laura Stephenson Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Lindsay Prihoda Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Lori Metcalfe Guildwood Village Community Association Mark Preston Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Mike Tanos Terraprobe Limited Moranne McDonnell Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Nancy Lowes City of Toronto Nick Saccone Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Patricia Newland Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Paul Albanese City of Toronto Peter Xiarchos M.P.P Lorenzo Berardinetti’s Office Susan Scinocca Meadowcliffe Drive Resident Sushaliya Ragunathan M.P.P Lorenzo Berardinetti’s Office Timo Puhakka Guildwood Village Community Association Trevor Harris Meadowcliffe Drive Resident Tudor Botzan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) continues to work towards ensuring healthy rivers and shorelines, greenspace and biodiversity, and sustainable communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 5 Has Been Updated to Reflect the Specific Additions/Revisions Outlined in the Errata to the Environmental Project Report, Dated November, 2017
    DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY This Revised Final Environmental Project Report – Volume 5 has been updated to reflect the specific additions/revisions outlined in the Errata to the Environmental Project Report, dated November, 2017. As such, it supersedes the previous Final version dated October, 2017. The report dated October, 2017 (“Report”), which includes its text, tables, figures and appendices) has been prepared by Gannett Fleming Canada ULC (“Gannett Fleming”) and Morrison Hershfield Limited (“Morrison Hershfield”) (“Consultants”) for the exclusive use of Metrolinx. Consultants disclaim any liability or responsibility to any person or party other than Metrolinx for loss, damage, expense, fines, costs or penalties arising from or in connection with the Report or its use or reliance on any information, opinion, advice, conclusion or recommendation contained in it. To the extent permitted by law, Consultants also excludes all implied or statutory warranties and conditions. In preparing the Report, the Consultants have relied in good faith on information provided by third party agencies, individuals and companies as noted in the Report. The Consultants have assumed that this information is factual and accurate and has not independently verified such information except as required by the standard of care. The Consultants accept no responsibility or liability for errors or omissions that are the result of any deficiencies in such information. The opinions, advice, conclusions and recommendations in the Report are valid as of the date of the Report and are based on the data and information collected by the Consultants during their investigations as set out in the Report. The opinions, advice, conclusions and recommendations in the Report are based on the conditions encountered by the Consultants at the site(s) at the time of their investigations, supplemented by historical information and data obtained as described in the Report.
    [Show full text]
  • Toronto Has No History!’
    ‘TORONTO HAS NO HISTORY!’ INDIGENEITY, SETTLER COLONIALISM AND HISTORICAL MEMORY IN CANADA’S LARGEST CITY By Victoria Jane Freeman A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of History University of Toronto ©Copyright by Victoria Jane Freeman 2010 ABSTRACT ‘TORONTO HAS NO HISTORY!’ ABSTRACT ‘TORONTO HAS NO HISTORY!’ INDIGENEITY, SETTLER COLONIALISM AND HISTORICAL MEMORY IN CANADA’S LARGEST CITY Doctor of Philosophy 2010 Victoria Jane Freeman Graduate Department of History University of Toronto The Indigenous past is largely absent from settler representations of the history of the city of Toronto, Canada. Nineteenth and twentieth century historical chroniclers often downplayed the historic presence of the Mississaugas and their Indigenous predecessors by drawing on doctrines of terra nullius , ignoring the significance of the Toronto Purchase, and changing the city’s foundational story from the establishment of York in 1793 to the incorporation of the City of Toronto in 1834. These chroniclers usually assumed that “real Indians” and urban life were inimical. Often their representations implied that local Indigenous peoples had no significant history and thus the region had little or no history before the arrival of Europeans. Alternatively, narratives of ethical settler indigenization positioned the Indigenous past as the uncivilized starting point in a monological European theory of historical development. i i iii In many civic discourses, the city stood in for the nation as a symbol of its future, and national history stood in for the region’s local history. The national replaced ‘the Indigenous’ in an ideological process that peaked between the 1880s and the 1930s.
    [Show full text]
  • AECOM Report 1.Dot
    Environmental Assessment chapter 3. description of the potentially affected environment 3. Description of the Potentially Affected Environment This chapter is divided into four different sections which describe different components of the baseline or existing environmental conditions. The first section describes the river characteristics which will influence the development of alternatives. This information has been separated from the remaining description of the natural environment such that some emphasis can be given to those aspects of the existing environment that are driving the development of alternatives for the DMNP. The second section describes the remaining components of the natural environment: fish and fish habitat, terrestrial vegetation, and wildlife. The third section addresses components related to soils and groundwater contamination. The final section describes socio-economic components: land use, air quality and noise, archaeology, aboriginal interests, and built heritage. 3.1 River Characteristics in the Project and Impact Assessment Study Areas The Don Watershed possesses a dendretic drainage pattern that flows southward for 38 kilometres (as the crow flies) from the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) to the Inner Harbour of Toronto. The Don possesses two major branches (the East and West Don), each consisting of many smaller sub-watershed systems, such as but not limited to Taylor Massey Creek, Wilket Creek, Patterson Creek and Pomona Creek. The confluence of the East and West Branches occurs approximately 6 kilometres upstream of the Impact Assessment Study Area. Downstream from the confluence, the sub-watershed is known as the Lower Don and includes all of the Don Narrows until reaching the Keating Channel. The entire watershed area or drainage basin of the Don River is approximately 360 square kilometres (Figure 3−1).
    [Show full text]
  • Peer Review EA Study Design Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport BBTCA
    Imagine the result Peer Review – EA Study Design Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport (BBTCA) Runway Expansion and Introduction of Jet Aircraft Final Report August 2015 BBTCA Peer Review of EA Study Design Report ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 Background 1-1 1.2 Current Assignment 1-3 2.0 PEER REVIEW APPROACH 2-1 2.1 Methodology 2-1 3.0 FINDINGS OF PEER REVIEW OF AECOM’S DRAFT STUDY DESIGN REPORT 3-1 3.1 EA Process and Legislation 3-1 3.2 Public Consultation & Stakeholder Engagement 3-1 3.3 Air Quality 3-2 3.4 Public Health 3-5 3.5 Noise 3-6 3.6 Natural Environment 3-10 3.7 Socio-Economic Conditions 3-11 3.8 Land Use & Built Form 3-14 3.9 Marine Physical Conditions and Water Quality 3-15 3.10 Transportation 3-15 3.11 Archaeology & Cultural Heritage 3-18 4.0 SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS 4-1 APPENDIX A Presentation Given to the Working Group (22 June 2015) B Presentation of Draft Phase I Peer Review Report Results (13 July 2015) i BBTCA Peer Review of EA Study Design Report ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AERMOD Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling System ARCADIS ARCADIS Canada Inc. BBTCA Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport CALPUFF Meteorological and Air Quality Monitoring System CCG Canadian Coast Guard CEAA Canadian Environmental Assessment Act CO Carbon Monoxide COPA Canadian Owners and Pilots Association dBA Decibel Values of Sounds EA Environmental Assessment EC Environment Canada GBE Government Business Enterprise GWC Greater Waterfront Coalition HEAT Habitat and Environmental Assessment Tool INM Integrated Noise Model Ldn Day-Night
    [Show full text]
  • The Fish Communities of the Toronto Waterfront: Summary and Assessment 1989 - 2005
    THE FISH COMMUNITIES OF THE TORONTO WATERFRONT: SUMMARY AND ASSESSMENT 1989 - 2005 SEPTEMBER 2008 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to thank the many technical staff, past and present, of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and Ministry of Natural Resources who diligently collected electrofishing data for the past 16 years. The completion of this report was aided by the Canada Ontario Agreement (COA). 1 Jason P. Dietrich, 1 Allison M. Hennyey, 1 Rick Portiss, 1 Gord MacPherson, 1 Kelly Montgomery and 2 Bruce J. Morrison 1 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, ON, M3N 1S4, Canada 2 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Lake Ontario Fisheries Management Unit, Glenora Fisheries Station, Picton, ON, K0K 2T0, Canada © Toronto and Region Conservation 2008 ABSTRACT Fish community metrics collected for 16 years (1989 — 2005), using standardized electrofishing methods, throughout the greater Toronto region waterfront, were analyzed to ascertain the current state of the fish community with respect to past conditions. Results that continue to indicate a degraded or further degrading environment include an overall reduction in fish abundance, a high composition of benthivores, an increase in invasive species, an increase in generalist species biomass, yet a decrease in specialist species biomass, and a decrease in cool water Electrofishing in the Toronto Harbour thermal guild species biomass in embayments. Results that may indicate a change in a positive community health direction include no significant changes to species richness, a marked increase in diversity in embayments, a decline in non-native species in embayments and open coasts (despite the invasion of round goby), a recent increase in native species biomass, fluctuating native piscivore dynamics, increased walleye abundance, and a reduction in the proportion of degradation tolerant species.
    [Show full text]
  • Billy Bishop Airport Master Planning Process Takes Off with First Public Meeting Scheduled for February 7 from 5:00 P.M
    Billy Bishop Airport Master Planning Process Takes Off with First Public Meeting Scheduled for February 7 from 5:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Meeting to include topic tables, formal presentation and Q&A Toronto (January 15, 2018) – Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport (Billy Bishop Airport) will hold its first public meeting in association with updating its Master Plan on February 7, 2018. The planning process for the Billy Bishop Airport 2018 Master Plan will include a robust public consultation process that will include the public, neighbourhood community groups, airport stakeholders, government agencies, and first nations communities. The first public meeting is scheduled for: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 Metro Toronto Convention Centre – North Building Level 200 – East Meeting Rooms 205 & 206 5:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Format: 5:00 to 6:30 p.m. – Open House with topic tables set up for small group discussion and Q&A. Topics will include: master plan process, noise management, wildlife management, ground transportation, emergency services, security and public safety, infrastructure, and environmental sustainability. 6:45 to 7:15 p.m. – Formal Presentation of Master Plan process and objectives 7:15 to 8:30 p.m. – Group Q&A Background: The primary purpose of an airport Master Plan is to establish an orderly development concept for the airport that establishes priorities and options for the airport’s operation and development over an extended period of time, while at the same time allowing the airport to avail itself of new opportunities to serve the needs of the community and operators.
    [Show full text]
  • The People of Scarborough
    ~THE SCARf>OROUGH PuBLIC LIBF{\RY I BOARP THE PEOPLE OF SCARBOROUGH Map of Scarborough ,.; .; .,; ::. .,; .,; .,; "'""- :;, -< "" -< "" "" 'ti "" "" S.teele~ Ave. V IV Finch Avenue III Sileppail.d Ave. 11 D St. REFERENCE POINTS 1. Thomson Park Z. Bluffer's Park J 3. civic Centre 4. Kennedy Subway 5. Metro Zoo Ikml 6. Guild Inn 1 mile! Map of Scarborough courtesy of Rick Schofield, Heritage Scarborough THE PEOPLE OF SCARBOROUGH The City of Scarborough Public Library Board Copyright© The City of Scarborough Public Library Board 1997 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, by photocopying, recording or otherwise for purposes of resale. Published by The City of Scarborough Public Library Board Grenville Printing 25 Scarsdale Rd. Don Mills, Ontario M3B 2R2 Raku ceramic Bicentennial Collector Plate and cover photo by Tom McMaken, 1996. Courtesy of The City of Scarborough. Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data Myrvold, Barbara The People of Scarborough: a history Includes index. ISBN 0-9683086-0-0 1. Scarborough (Ont.) - History. I. Fahey, Curtis, 1951- . II Scarborough Public Library Board. III. Title. FC3099.S33M97 1997 971.3'541 C97-932612-5 F1059.5.T686S35 1997 iv Greetings from the Mayor As Mayor of the City of Scarborough, and on behalf of Members of Council, I am pleased that The People of Scarborough: A History, has been produced. This book provides a chronological overview of the many diverse peoples and cultures that have contributed to the city's economic, cultural and social fabric.
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment 2: Phased MTSA Prioritization Approach
    Attachment 2: Phased MTSA Prioritization Approach The following Tables list potential Major Transit Station Areas and places them in one of three phases, in which staff target advancing the delineation of, and density calculation for each. Tables 3, 4, and 5 list the potential MTSAs that have an existing approved Environmental Assessment and Table 6 lists the identified Provincial Priority Projects through draft Bill 171 - Building Transit Faster Act, 2020. The Tables indicate the status of studies either recently completed or currently underway, in which the potential MTSA is located. In some instances, major development applications are currently under review that will act as an input towards the delineation of the MTSA and the associated density calculation. Other priority areas may be identified through the course of the MCR that include additional potential MTSAs. Growth Plan Conformity and MCR – Work Plan Page 17 of 33 Table 2: Proposed MTSA Prioritization Phase 1 Station Line Related Study Status Bathurst Line 2 - Bloor-Danforth Completed Bay Line 2 - Bloor-Danforth Completed Islington Line 2 - Bloor-Danforth Underway Kipling Line 2 - Bloor-Danforth Underway Sherbourne Line 2 - Bloor-Danforth Completed Line 2 - Bloor-Danforth /Line 1- Completed Bloor-Yonge Yonge-University Line 2 - Bloor-Danforth / Line 1- Completed Spadina Yonge-University Line 2 - Bloor-Danforth/ Line 1- Completed St George Yonge-University Avenue Eglinton Crosstown LRT Completed Birchmount Eglinton Crosstown LRT Underway Chaplin Eglinton Crosstown LRT Completed Eglinton Eglinton Crosstown LRT Completed Golden Mile Eglinton Crosstown LRT Underway Hakimi Lebovic Eglinton Crosstown LRT Underway Leaside Eglinton Crosstown LRT Completed Mount Pleasant Eglinton Crosstown LRT Completed O'Connor Eglinton Crosstown LRT Underway Pharmacy Eglinton Crosstown LRT Underway Sentinel Finch West LRT Completed Kipling GO - Milton Underway St.
    [Show full text]